In case you are from Mars, here´s the background on that rare -- the first in 20 months -- public pronunciamiento by Mueller´s office:

BuzzFeed published a report that could turn out to be one of the biggest scoops of all times. It claimed Donald Trump had ordered his attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress, and that Cohen had reported that fact to the office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

If Trump ordered Cohen to lie, he committed obstruction of justice, an impeachable offense.

There it is -- the smoking gun.

Ballgame over; lights out. Case closed. Elvis has left the stadium.

In response to the BuzzFeed article, Mueller’s office issued the public statement cited above. For its part, BuzzFeed is sticking to its report: "This story is going to be borne out."

Why would Mueller make a public utterance on a media story when he has not done so in the past? He was doing the right thing until now in maintaining silence. Why the sudden change?

Two possibilities:​1. His pronunciamiento is the product of tensions in Mueller´s staff. Some wanted to maintain silence; others wanted to say something big -- to "take control of the situation; it´s getting out of hand." The result was a compromise -- pure fudge, neither fish nor fowl.2. Unlike the Russians, North Koreans, Chinese and Iranians, Mueller and his team are psychologically tone-deaf.

We have noted previously (see our September 25 post, "How America´s Rivals are Manipulating Donald Trump: A Freudian Analysis") that Trump is so full of holes, a typical teenager can play him like a flute.

Our argument: Trump is anally expulsive, i.e., as a two-year-old boy he found pleasure in smearing his feces on everything and everybody. Today, when he is put under pressure, he regresses to that two year old. The result is, like any toddler, he is incapable of making good decisions; he sabotages himself. The federal government shutdown is only the latest example.

The correct strategy for Mueller, then, would be to not only keep the pressure up but add to it.

Instead, Mueller´s statement weakened it.

Trump saw the error immediately and pounced on it. Watch him here: Trump said he "greatly appreciated" the Mueller statement.

If you google search the BuzzFeed incident you will find numerous stories with this type of headline (CNN): "Mueller´s Office disputes BuzzFeed report that Trump directed Michael Cohen to lie to congress."

Sorry, CNN talking heads, but you need to put on your plastic beanies again; this time, try to spin the propellers in the right direction. Read the Mueller report at the top of this post. It clearly limits itself in stating: regarding Michael Cohen’s CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY.

The comma before the word "regarding" is highly significant because it makes Cohen´s congressional testimony be the entire context of the Mueller statement. If you bother to read the BuzzFeed report, CNN, you will see that testimony is only one among many items.

​Get it straight, CNN: to deny one part of a report is not to deny the entire report.

Did Trump or didn´t he order Cohen to lie? If the answer turns out to be yes, Mueller and staffers, you missed a magnificent opportunity to shut up.

​Your Great Compromise could turn out to be the compromise of greatness.

Every year we are treated to the same shameless shutdown spectacle that itself should have been shut down years ago.

Part of the federal government shuts down over funding squabbles. When they end (and they will end) and the government is funded (yes, it will be funded), politicians of all stripes and persuasions will preen and primp and strut on CNN about how they and they alone saved the republic.

​Forget House Speaker Nancy Pelosi; she has no more business being there than did her predecessor Paul Ryan. Forget the Democrats and the Republicans. If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging. The shut down problem requires an institutional remedy, not a political one.

The difference is crucial.

Most protest movements, such as the yellow vest movement riling France this moment, fail. In the end, only Dr. Feelgood "solutions" are produced because protesters as a rule are incapable of distinguishing symbolic changes from real ones. Real ones involve institutional principles and practices which are the rules of the game. The pros watching from behind lace curtains the protesters in the streets know all that only to well. They also know that all they have to do is what they do best: nothing.

So, what would be an institutional change that would stop the congenitally-silly federal government shutdown showboat?

There are presently 27 constitutional amendments. Constitutional Amendment 28 would require that if no funding bill is passed by a certain date, the existing budget would be brought forward for the next fiscal year.

No politician anywhere wants that continuation; hence there would be no more funding crises.

​Simple, effective -- and that is precisely the problem with our proposed amendment.

One of the most mesmerizing quotes I have ever read comes from a man who was definitely, decidedly -- I mean, no way -- a Utopian:

"I draw the conclusion that, assuming no important wars and no important increase in population, the economic problem may be solved, or be at least within sight of solution, within a hundred years. This means that the economic problem is not --if we look into the future -- the permanent problem of the human race.” John Maynard Keynes, “Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren” (1930).

O.K., what went wrong?

For starters, there was World War II with 60 million deaths. That´s roughly 3% of the world population in 1940.

As for that world population, it was 2 billion in 1930, when Keynes published his article. Today, it is almost 7 billion. Sounds alarming and it is. The only good news is the growth rate has been declining, from a high of 2.09% in 1968 to 1.12% in 2017.

Anything else?

Keynes left something out.

It is big enough to cause me to suspect that even if Keynes´ two conditions were met, economic underdevelopment would still be "a permanent problem."

* * *

There is a reason why economic underdevelopment persists. It has nothing to do with anything you read or heard, or even imagined.

Certain people -- the top 5% who control 22.3% of America´s economic pie (see below) -- benefit enormously from underdevelopment. They make more money clipping coupons in five seconds than you do working hard all year.

Trump´s rabid complaints about illegal aliens -- they´re criminals, rapists -- are the first solid clue as to where the problem -- as well as the solution -- are found.

His pounding on the desk and foaming at the mouth are a classic case of ideological inversion. Which means, if you turn what he says upside down, the truth emerges:

To paraphrase Elvis, the American oligarchy wants, needs and loves illegal emigres.

What?! How can that possibly be?

Undocumented workers form an excess labor pool that keeps U.S. wages low. There -- that´s the deep dirty secret nobody is talking about. Don t look for it on CNN or ABC. Forget the Washington Post or New York Times. They fear that if they break the taboo, major league advertisers will pull their accounts. Media magnates know only too well about such facts of life; after all, they too are oligarchs.

The Trump wall with Mexico is a sideshow -- all 1,954 miles of it. Most illegal aliens come in through other points of entry, including airports, where they officially declare themselves to be "asylum seekers." While the government studies their case, they disappear. Now you know why American oligarchs look at the Trump $5 billion-wall and snicker in their Cloudberry liqueur. They know that it is being erected in order to be avoided.

Not to worry: they also know all about the waiter who served them the liqueur.

* * *

How big is the excess labor pool?

The number of illegal aliens is estimated to be 10.7 million. That is 3.3% of the U.S. population. Doesn´t sound like much -- but watch out! -- that number is at best a guesstimate. I was an expert witness in Federal Court where this issue came up. Nobody really has a clue how many illegals are in the U.S. because when the census taker shows up at the front door, the illegals run out the back.

However, we will accept 10.7 million for the moment. Now, I think we can rightly assume that the vast portion of them are working or looking for work; after all, that is why they came.

The American labor force -- people working full time -- is 129 million. To repeat, only guesstimates are possible. However, it looks like for every 10 American workers, there is one illegal alien. That is enough to significantly pressure wages downward where it counts: the minimum wage.

The minimum wage is THE benchmark. All other salaries, public and private, are fixed in multiples of that wage; hence, anything lowering it pulls down all wages up the line.

I will belabor the obvious. The excess labor pool in the U.S. is

(i) overwhelmingly a result of underdevelopment in Latin America. 92% of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. are from Latin America/Caribbean. That means if you want to reduce the pool and raise U.S. wages, the necessary condition is(ii) economically develop Latin America.

Here a major problem rears its ugly head... As mentioned, Trump´s cronies want, need and love illegal aliens. That 5%-megawealthy has the power, not you or I.

Like Trump´s wall, the traditional responses -- foreign aid and private charity -- are processes that ape numerous laws: they are written to be evaded. Both are pure eyewash to appease the old folks at home. I say that because giving aid and charity only perpetuates the relationship between the giver and the recipient. How?

The giveaway to the giveaway: no reciprocity is demanded of the recipient. Not even a dance or fiesta.

Gifts are extremely complex. The giver of a gift is in a superior position because the receiver owes him something. In many societies, notably in the Pacific, the receiver is obligated to give a superior gift in return. Thus, a chain of human interaction is established through imbalance. In a monetary exchange, nothing of the sort occurs. If I pay you money for a product, we are even. Period. Good-bye.

All that is nothing new. If foreign aid and charity could solve economic underdevelopment in Latin America, they would have done it by now. Which means, they exist for another purpose: power -- how to get it, how to maintain it. In both aspects, aid and charity are marvelously effective literally where it counts...

U.S. income figures tell the tale: the portion of the national economic pie going to the top 5% is 22.3%. That is up from 16.3% in 1968. That colossal increase can only come out of the hides of --you guessed it -- the middle and lower classes.

If foreign aid and charity have not solved underdevelopment in the past, are not solving it now, and will not solve it in the future, what will?

* * *

As is common knowledge, a big dream throughout Latin America is to immigrate to the United States. To the point: is there an alternative dream and reality?

Antonio Polo, an Italian Salesian priest, starting in 1970 organized a dirt-poor rural village -- 85% illiteracy, 45% infant mortality -- into a prosperous community, by making manifest something that was latent.

That something was Pre-Columbian collectivist norms and values.

Salinas created an organization-production-commercialization-savings model based on “esfuerzo comunitario” (community effort).

The impact on the United States could be enormous.

There is a catastrophic trend in the United States which is not being attended to. We indicated it above: rich richer, poor poorer and middle class smaller. A necessary (but not sufficient) precondition for redressing that trend is to reduce the surplus labor pool.

To significantly reduce it, however, is not possible without going to the source of the problem as Salinas did -- not by tinkering with legislation in Washington; not by foreign aid; not by Dr. Feelgood charity.

Only economic development in Latin America will suffice. In concrete terms, that means more Salinases. Hundreds, maybe thousands more.

That cannot happen, however, under prevailing circumstances.

More Salinases is exactly what the American oligarchy will oppose to its dying ember.

​Of course illegal émigrés present problems beyond pure economics. We may be on the threshold of an era of historically-unparalleled humanitarian crises. ​.

Sorry, Prime Minister Theresa May, but the solution to the Brexit mess is an easy call. A reasonable one, too.

Background:

On June 23, 2016, a referendum was held to see if the U.K. should stay or leave the European Union. The actual wording: “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?” 51.9% voted for leave, 48.1% to remain. That wording is crucial; we will return to it in a moment.

Three things to consider:

(1) Contrary to what both the stay and leave proponents said/implied -- and are still saying/implying -- the referendum results were NOT legally binding. They had all the statutory power of a Gallup poll.

(2) Never confuse "majority" and "consensus." Exactly that is what May and her pro-Brexit group are doing. A majority is 50% plus 1. A consensus, on the other hand, by all standard definitions, e.g., Cambridge, is a generally accepted opinion; wide agreement.

Yes, a majority favored Brexit. However, by no stretch of the imagination does 51.9% constitute a consensus.

So, where exactly, in quantitative terms, does a consensus begin? It has to be more than a majority, but where?

The question cannot be settled once and for all because of cultural and historical differences. However, I would make an opening bid at 55%. Anything less decidedly is not a consensus anywhere.

The proverbial bottom line: the referendum showed there was no consensus in the U.K. about staying or leaving the European Union.

As a general policy, I believe change should be difficult to make, but not impossible. For starters, a change should always require a consensus. A tie (less that 55%) goes to the champion, in this case, the status quo.

(3) The wording of the 2016 referendum was simple: stay/leave. That is the equivalent of asking: "Do you like freedom of speech? Yes/no. " That is qualitatively a totally different statement than asking: "Do you think a fascist should be allowed to speak at your local high school. Yes/no." In the 2016 Brexit referendum, there was no concrete, observable, empirical, detailed proposal on the table. Today, there is one -- the Checkers Plan -- with all the surrounding debate.

And so, a new situation exists. The issue of Brexit is no longer a misty water-colored idea; it has been operationalized.

The proper thing to do, therefore, is to have a second referendum on the real, tangible Brexit plan. I lived in London. My common sense tells me that the U.K. would now vote to stay in the European Union. The pro-Brexit forces would have only Theresa May to thank for that outcome; she completely, totally, absolutely botched the negotiations with the EU regarding the conditions under which the U.K. would leave.

Mother, may I? became Mother, no way.

Could it have been otherwise?

* * *

"He´ll be leaving soon."

If you want to get rid of a guy at the office, there´s no better way to do it than to start that rumor. I watched it work countless times in both legislative and executive branch politics.

Authority is a time-related event. No time; no authority.

The United Kingdom will be leaving soon. That is what May announced to the world immediately after the Brexit referendum. Instead, she should have gone back to the EU with referendum results in hand and pointed to the widespread dissatisfaction. We don´t really want to leave but... and bargained for reforms. She did no such thing.

​Forget reform; for May it was all or nothing. There are roughly six months to go before Britain leaves. Unless there is a drastic change, May and the U.K. will get to see up close and personal what nothing looks like.

Another recalcitrant, oh-so-sure-of-himself politico faced the leaving soon situation. The only difference was, he was too naive to know it.

Throughout the peace talks with North Vietnam, Henry Kissinger pranced and preened before the press in a Paris chateau: gosh, the fate of the entire world rested on his teeny-weeny Bavarian shoulders.

The reality was of course entirely different. What did he have to negotiate? Do we get out now or do we get out later?

The North Vietnamese weren´t the only ones to see through Kissinger´s slab-dab "negotiating." Five centuries ago, Shakespeare caught the drift:

Over the decades I worked with hundreds of elected officials. Only 2-3 understood what you are about to read:

Power must be exercised in order to exist.

The real problem with over 95% of politicians is this:

They are not politicians. They are petit business people in it for the contacts. Sure, some are out-and-out crooks and are there to steal from the public treasury, but those are minuscule in number. Nonetheless, contacts or theft, it comes down to the same thing: money. North Korea, public education, health care, Puerto Rico: as for anything else, not only are most elected officials not interested, they view non-how-to-make-money matters as intrusions. Nuisances.

The phenomenon is not new. In 1835, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote:

"Men living in democratic times have many passions, but most of their passions either end in the love of riches or proceed from it. The cause of this is not that their souls are narrower, but that the importance of money is really greater at such times. When all the members of a community are independent of or indifferent to each other, the co-operation of each of them can be obtained only by paying for it: this infinitely multiplies the purposes to which wealth may be applied and increases its value. When the reverence that belonged to what is old has vanished, birth, condition, and profession no longer distinguish men, or scarcely distinguish them; hardly anything but money remains to create strongly marked differences between them and to raise some of them above the common level. The distinction originating in wealth is increased by the disappearance or diminution of all other distinctions. Among aristocratic nations money reaches only to a few points on the vast circle of man's desires; in democracies it seems to lead to all.

The love of wealth is therefore to be traced, as either a principal or an accessory motive, at the bottom of all that the Americans do; this gives to all their passions a sort of family likeness and soon renders the survey of them exceedingly wearisome. This perpetual recurrence of the same passion is monotonous; the peculiar methods by which this passion seeks its own gratification are no less so."*

The head-long rush to make hay while the sun shines explains why the vast majority of politicians are politically tone-deaf.

We recently saw a classic case study of a politician who is not a politician.

Senator Susan Collins of Maine likes to claim she is a moderate Republican who is the key Senate swing vote. As last week´s Kavanaugh vote showed, when all is said and done (which it was), she cowards down real fine. After kewpie-pie flirting with a no vote, she gave a speech in which she performed the Blivet Trick -- trying to put 10 pounds of horse shit into a five-pound bag. To watch her explanation that didn´t explain anything, click here.

What would a real politician have done?

* * *

I had a client who was a House Representative and close personal friend who was one in a million -- a real politician.

He started out as a member of an endangered species: a liberal Republican. As time passed, he realized that the GOP superstructure would never let him advance in the House despite the prevailing seniority system.

He was out of step -- but never out of touch. A once-in-a-generation opportunity came up that proved it.

Following the general elections, the 70-member House was split between 35 Democrats and a coalition of 35 Conservative Democrats and Republicans. The legislative session was a week away, with the all-important vote for Speaker due the first day. The Speaker runs the place -- period. The Democrats offered my client a far better deal than anything the Republicans could conceive of, much less offer. The Democrats told him that if he cast his vote for their candidate for Speaker, in return they would make him Chairman of The House Appropriations Committee.

What happened next: in the course of the two-minute roll call vote for Speaker, my client went from a nobody to one of the five most powerful people in the state. He subsequently changed his party affiliation to Democrat and served with distinction for over 20 years. He faced re-election every two years; no opponent ever came close to beating him.

Susan Collins had a comparable opportunity last week. All she had to do was find an associate or two and vote no on Brett Kavanaugh. Presto -- Collins and friends would have become the swing factor of the United States Senate. But to have power she had to exercise power, and that is where she failed. Unlike my client who stood tall and voted for the Democrat candidate for Speaker, Collins stuck with the GOP establishment and voted for Kavanaugh. Sure, had she voted no her Republican colleagues and Trump would have been mad as hell -- whereupon she could have gently explained to them that if they didn´t change their tone they could expect more of the same. In fact, she and her friend were thinking of changing from Republicans to Independents; she would then smile and ask her Republican colleagues what they had to offer so that she and her friend would stay Republicans.

So it goes, on and on -- or rather could have gone.

Because Collins did not exercise power when she had the opportunity, it now does not exist for her. Her flirting with a no vote means that she will now fall through the cracks; neither the Republicans nor the Democrats will trust, much less respect her. Instead of controlling the United State Senate, she will politically make a swift trip in the service elevator to the basement where she will be consigned to the bottom of the bottom drawers -- that lower than lowly station in politics everywhere -- not of a traitor or crazy person or idiot, but a flake.

Before and after Kavanaugh. When you look at her, you won´t see any difference.

But it´s there.

Update: October 13. In case you are wondering, Public Policy Polling showed (August 21) that the percentage of Maine voters against confirming Kavanaugh was 49% with 42% in favor.

Only 35% approved of Collins´job performance, 48% disapproved. That finding spells disaster for Collins because everybody in Maine knows who Collins is: they either (i) like her or (ii) dislike her. With numbers like hers, all I can say is if the Maine Democrats can´t beat her, they have no business being in electoral politics. She is a dud ripe for dumping.

Most of us have heard the term "anal retentive." It means a person who is stingy, obsessed with details, order, precision, cleanliness. He is punctual and respectful of authority.

Freud found the cause in overly strict toilet training. The infant gets pleasure in holding his feces inside.

That is not Trump.

He is the exact opposite of anal retentive. Trump is anal expulsive.

Which calls for an explanation.

A new-born infant is boiling with libido energy that is totally unfocused. Freud´s theory of 5 stages of psychological development deal with how that energy becomes directed.

Freud thought the human personality is formed very early. The undirected libido develops through various fixations. If a stage is not psychologically completed and released, a person can become trapped in it. That may result in the creation of defense mechanisms to avoid the anxiety produced from the conflict in and leaving the stage in question.

The anal phase is characterized by withholding/expelling feces. An anal-expulsive person, Freud thought, is the product of liberal toilet training. Unlike the anal-retentive, the anal-expulsive personality derives pleasure from releasing feces.

The key: if you have problems during any of the psychosexual stages which are not effectively resolved, you will become fixated on that earlier stage and when under stress you will regress to the characteristics of that stage.

You just saw how to manipulate Trump:

Stress.

Pressure; unrelenting pressure.

Stress causes him to become more and more anally expulsive -- disorganized, cruel, rebellious, messy, careless, self-confident, full of emotional outbursts. He goes down the only path he knows -- regression to a 2-4 year-old.

Childhood regression creates static in rational decision-making. That is why and how Trump ends up making bad choices for himself and for America.

Stumbling, fumbling. Self- sabotage.

Trump trumps Trump.

We are constantly told we have no power. But no man lacks the power to destroy himself. That may be the ultimate lesson learned from the Trump experience.

* * *

Duress is how to manipulate Trump. Watch the nightly news; surf the Internet. I don´t think I am telling anything new to Russian, North Korean or Chinese intelligence agencies.

​In fact, I have detected a tandem. Think of a tag team with three members. One after another after another they tease and taunt Trump who, left to his own devices, fights them alone.

​More and more alone.

Duress... I´m not saying anything new to Bob Mueller either.

​The long and the short of it:

​If you elect an anally-expulsive person to public office, you´re going to have a mess on your hands.

The airwaves are stuffed to the gills with speculation about a possible "kompromat" -- compromising information -- which enabled Russia to turn Donald Trump into its trained poodle.

We think we know what Russia´s kompromat is:

Money laundering for Russia. For a comprehensive, rigorously documented article on this subject, click here. If true, then Trump is a criminal and Putin knows it and can prove it.

Nevertheless, blackmailers are easily handled.

Normally, blackmailers communicate orally. A written note would be concrete evidence of another crime -- blackmail:

"18 U.S. Code § 873 - Blackmail. Whoever, under a threat of informing, or as a consideration for not informing, against any violation of any law of the United States, demands or receives any money or other valuable thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."

The blackmailer faces a major obstacle. If he calls his victim, the call may be recorded. Forget emails. If he sends a message via a second or third person, that person may go to the police -- or threaten to do so and blackmail the blackmailer.

There is only one sure solution to the blackmailer´s dilemma: speak to the victim in private. Classic example: the two-hour closed meeting Putin held with Trump in Helsinki.

​Trump knows the Russians are aware of his money-laundering adventure, assuming it took place; after all, they participated in it. The political leverage gained by Russia in having that knowledge would be rendered null and void, however, by never giving them the chance to present their kompromat to Trump in private.

If the Russian Ambassador requests an audience in the White House, for example, all Trump has to do is make sure there are 6-7 other people in the room, then demurely inquire.

​"So, Mr. Ambassador, what is it you want to see me about?"

* * *

Julian Assange, head of Wikileaks, has been residing for 6 years in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Rumors abound in Ecuador that President Rafael Correa granted him political asylum because he has kompromat on Correa.

Those same rumors now swirl around Correa´s successor, President Lenín Moreno.

If Assange is blackmailing the Ecuadorian government, the same tactic applies: never give him the occasion to present his kompromat.

​We learned recently that Mike Pompeo´s fourth trip to North Korea was suddenly called off by Trump.

The cancellation is the best thing that could have happened. And not for the reason you´re being told -- that North Korea is not making sufficient progress in dismantling its nuclear program.

* * *

How do you flatten a kewpie-pie guy?

Answer: knock him off his game plan by out-kewpie-pieing him.

Here is Mike Pompeo´s biography. See for yourself: the man from Wichita hasn´t been anywhere or done anything that would qualify him to negotiate with North Korea.

He´s a mini-bantamweight fighter in a sport that has no mini- bantamweight class.

To see my point, watch this short video of Pompeo with the North Koreans.

An interpretation of what the North Korean chief negotiator was doing:

"It's a combination of Kim Yong Chol's unique sense of humor, typical Korean small talk about health especially when you reach the age of an ´elder,´ and trying to throw a jab, to posture, and give Pompeo a hard time," explained Duyeon Kim, a visiting senior research fellow at the Korean Peninsula Future Forum in Seoul.

Poor Mike Pompeo. Like his boss, he just doesn´t get it. The man from Wichita hasn´t been around self-styled communists; consequently he ends up mystifying them.

Their innermost secret essence is more banal than banal: nobody in the entire world is less revolutionary than a communist bureaucrat.

Suggested Response Number 1. Softline:

"I didn´t sleep at all. Not a single second. In fact, I regularly go 5-6 nights in a row without sleeping. How is that possible? Well, when one knows that he truly represents the people, human rights, world peace, freedom, justice and peace, he has incredible energy.

And you, Mr. Kim -- did you sleep well last night?"

Suggested Response Number 2. Hardline.

"I slept terribly. I had a recurring nightmare. It just wouldn´t stop! A top official somewhere was paraded before a crowd, then blown to bits by an anti-aircraft gun. Completely absurd. To top it off, in the crowd I swear I saw the laughing face of...ah...forget it. Utter nonsense! Kill a man with an anti-aircraft gun! Outrageous! Why, only a gangster would do such a thing.

Wouldn´t he, Mr. Kim."

The trick here is to throw Kim Yong Chol off his game plan. That is best accomplished by igniting his startle reflex. It is rooted in survival and is auditory in nature. If you´re walking in the woods and a lion suddenly roars nearby, you don´t have time to analyze it.

When in doubt, turn to Nature. Nature provides allegories that are as terrifying as they are enlightening.

Our prior post presented the thesis that Donald Trump laundered colossal sums of money for the Russian mafia. That criminal activity explains his behavior and statements in Helsinki and beyond.

Money laundering is what Putin has on Trump. It is the source of Putin´s leverage.

Let´s call it what it is:

The blackmailing of Trump is the blackmailing of America.

The Justice Department´s Special Counsel Robert Mueller expanded his investigation of Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election to include Donald Trump´s financial affairs with Russians. Mueller has impaneled a grand jury and issued subpoenas.

If the Mueller investigation corroborates Trump´s ties with the Russian mafia, a nature story told by Sir David Attenborough in the BBC´s “The Story of Life” will have presented the entire denouement better than any CNN article, courtroom, or history book. It is a story acted out countless times far from human eyes.